LifeFuel Energy Bars LifeFuel Energy Bars

PureZen Himalayan Salt Lamp PureZen Himalayan Salt Lamp SkinHydrate Moisturizer SkinHydrate Moisturizer

Shop Now
AirHaven Car Air Freshener AirHaven Car Air Freshener

SolarBright Garden Lights SolarBright Garden Lights AirCool Mini AC AirCool Mini AC




“Healthy” Foods That Are Actually Unhealthy

Published on 04/25/2021
ADVERTISEMENT

Almost every week there is a new superfood or ingredient that should help you shed extra pounds, boost your energy and strengthen your immune system. For decades, food companies have been trying to convince their customers to buy products that are full of additives, chemicals, and other questionable items. And while many of them are marketed as particularly healthy, these products can have negative effects on your health. Here are some supposedly “healthy” foods and their better alternatives.

“Healthy” Foods That Are Actually Unhealthy

Granola

Granola is the healthy breakfast alternative to sweet donuts or pancakes with syrup? Unfortunately not – granola is full of sugar (8 to 12 g per serving) and empty calories and should therefore be considered a dessert. Ingesting a large amount of sugar in the morning can be detrimental to your health. Studies show that increased sugar intake is linked to a higher risk of cancer, diabetes, and obesity. You can avoid this by simply making your own granola (or granola / granola bars) at home with nutrient-rich ingredients like oats, nuts, seeds, and dried fruits for natural sweetness. If you want to leave out granola entirely, just use chia seeds or hemp seeds as a crispy alternative to your yogurt or bowl of oatmeal!

Processed Fruit Juices

Even if you used to think that fruit juice was healthy – now you should definitely cross it off your shopping list. It contains a high and concentrated dose of fructose, but without the beneficial fiber that you get from whole foods. The same fiber has numerous benefits and helps you slow down the absorption of sugar into the bloodstream, avoiding sudden sugar shocks or hypoglycaemia. It also reduces the risk of heart disease, diabetes, obesity, and high blood pressure.

Diet Snacks

Snacks such as vegetable chips are considered a healthy snack between meals and an alternative to high-fat products such as potato chips. However, many of the store-bought brands are deep-fried and are usually high in sodium, fat, and other artificial additives that you should absolutely avoid.
So how about homemade vegetable chips made from carrots, courgettes, radishes or cabbage? Fat-free popcorn, roasted chickpeas, or roasted pumpkin seeds are also healthy alternatives.

Artificial Sweetener

Artificial sweeteners are mostly hidden in “healthy” foods, but they are actually harmful to your health. Studies show that sweeteners like aspartame, sucralose and saccharin can even stimulate your appetite and lead to food cravings. This subsequently leads to weight gain (possibly even obesity) and a deterioration in your intestinal health. You should definitely avoid diet foods with artificial sweeteners. Sweeten your food yourself. With fresh fruit, stevia, raw honey or maple syrup you can season your meals naturally and so satisfy your cravings for sweets – without any additional chemicals or other no-gos.

If you want to keep a child from seeing an R rated movie you do not ban the movie from the theaters do you? No that would be silly you just make sure that people are doing there best to check and verify that no one under 18 gets into seeing the movie. By banning the movie chances are greater that someone will get a bootleg copy and show it to every kid in the town.

So if you want to keep a child from gambling online then all the online casinos should be regulated and monitored, not banned.

The same goes for terrorists. If you believe terrorist groups are exploiting an unregulated and unmonitored industry such as the online gambling industry, then by regulating it you can see where the money is going and make sure it is not going to fund international terrorist attacks. All that is accomplished by banning it is that the criminals get a stronger grip on the industry.

The ban on online gambling is much like the war on drugs. If marijuana was legalized in the USA crimes related to it would almost go away completely, because it would be sold in stores and it would be controlled, another advantage would be that people would no longer be going to jail for marijuana-related charges, this means thousands of fewer people getting arrested and going to jail every year, which would save us tax money that could be better spent.

By making online gambling in the USA a legalized form of adult entertainment it would also bring in an estimated 1.2 billion dollars in taxes to the American government. This money could be used for schools, police and universal healthcare for all Americans.

This is how you improve society, not by telling people what to do. It is human nature to want what we can not have so the more laws you put in place to stop people from doing something the better the chances are that people are going to do it.

People are just as likely to become addicted to gambling at a regulated casino as an unregulated one, but the difference is that in a regulated casino they will not extend you the amount of credit that will get you into trouble in an illegal casino.

And in a regulated casino, they will have information on how to get help if you have a gambling problem. In an illegal casino, they will not have this type of information, they want you to continue to gamble till you have nothing left, and then they will let you fall and find someone to take your place.

In the long run, society can only prosper if we educate people on the dangers of gambling both online and in a casino, and not from banning an industry that employs thousands of people in countries all over the world. No one gains anything from just telling people they can not do something that they are going to do anyway.

It is about time the government learned this and stopped making the same mistakes year after year.

Americans share fake news to fit in with social circles

  • Journalism and Facts
  • Social Media and Internet
  • Politics

Fear of exclusion contributes to spread of fake news, research finds

Read the journal article

  • Tribalism and Tribulations (PDF, 495KB)

WASHINGTON — Both conservative and liberal Americans share fake news because they don’t want to be ostracized from their social circles, according to research published by the American Psychological Association.

“Conformity and social pressure are key motivators of the spread of fake news,” said lead researcher Matthew Asher Lawson, PhD, an assistant professor of decision sciences at INSEAD, a business school in France. “If someone in your online tribe is sharing fake news, then you feel pressure to share it as well, even if you don’t know whether it’s false or true.”

The research was published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.

The proliferation of fake news contributes to increasing political polarization and distrust of democratic institutions, according to the Brookings Institution. But fake news doesn’t always proliferate due to dark motives or a call for action. The researchers began studying the issue after noticing people in their own social networks sharing fake news seemingly without malicious intent or ideological purpose.

“Political ideology alone doesn’t explain people’s tendency to share fake news within their social groups,” Lawson said. “There are many factors at play, including the very basic desire to fit in and not to be excluded.”

One experiment analyzed the tweets and political ideology of more than 50,000 pairs of Twitter users in the U.S., including tweets sharing fake or hyper-partisan news between August and December 2020. (Political ideology was determined through a network-based algorithm that imputes ideology by looking at the types of accounts Twitter users follow.) The number of tweets between pairs of Twitter users in the same social circles were measured. Twitter users were less likely to interact with each other over time if one of them shared a fake news story and the other did not share that same story. The same effect was found regardless of political ideology but was stronger for more right-leaning participants.

A second experiment analyzed 10,000 Twitter users who had shared fake news in the prior test, along with another group that was representative of Twitter users in general. Twitter users who had shared fake news were more likely to exclude other users who didn’t share the same content, suggesting that social pressures may be particularly acute in the fake news ecosystem.

Across several additional online experiments, participants indicated a reduced desire to interact with social connections who failed to share the same fake news. Participants who were more concerned about the social costs of not fitting in were also more likely to share fake news.

While fake news may seem prolific, prior research has found that fake news only accounts for 0.15% of Americans’ daily media consumption, and 1% of individuals are responsible for 80% of fake news sharing. Other research found that election-related misinformation on Twitter decreased by 73% after Donald Trump was banned from the platform.

Many complex factors contribute to people’s decisions to share fake news so reducing its spread is difficult, and the role of social media companies isn’t always clear, Lawson said.

“Pre-bunking” methods that inform people about the ways that misinformation spreads and highlighting the importance of the accuracy of news can help reduce the spread of fake news. However, finding ways to ease the social pressure to conform in online spaces may be needed to start winning the war on misinformation, Lawson said.

Article: “Tribalism and Tribulations: The Social Costs of Not Sharing Fake News,” Matthew Asher Lawson, PhD, INSEAD, Shikhar Anand, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, and Hemant Kakkar, PhD, Duke University, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, published online March 9, 2023.